RALEIGH, N.C. — Lawmakers in North Carolina passed legislation to overturn Charlotte’s controversial “bathroom bill” on Wednesday, sending the statute to the desk of Gov. Pat McCrory, who promptly signed the measure into law.

“The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte,” McCrory said in a statement.

As previously reported, despite hours of testimony largely in opposition of the proposal, the Charlotte City Council voted 7-4 last month to expand the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to add provisions for homosexuals and those who identify as the opposite sex—including in regard to restroom and locker room use.

Over 21,000 area residents had signed a petition in opposition of the proposed expansion, and pastors, community leaders and others part of a coalition opposed to the changes known as “Don’t Do It Charlotte” also rallied outside prior to the meeting.

Council members Al Austin, John Autry, Patsy Kinsey, Julie Eiselt, James Mitchell, LaWana Mayfield and Mayor Pro Tem Lyles voted in favor of the ordinance, while council members Ed Driggs, Claire Fallon, Greg Phipps, and Kenny Smith rejected the measure.

Gov. McCrory had warned that legislative action would ensue if the council passed the ordinance, and just as stated, House Speaker Tim Moore vowed to overturn the law following its approval.

On Monday, following a rally at the state house, Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger announced that they had obtained the necessary three-fifths majority in the General Assembly to move forward with a special session on the matter. Lawmakers sought to override the ordinance before it went into effect on April 1.

On Wednesday, following three hours of debate, the North Carolina House voted 84-25 in favor of a bill invalidating the Charlotte ordinance, with votes cast mostly along party lines—with the exception of 11 Democrats who supported the effort.

The bill, known as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, then passed the Senate 32-0 after Democrats walked out in protest as they believed that they were being left out of the participation process.

Transgender advocacy organizations opposed the special session, stating that the move to overturn the law was based on fear, and not facts.

“Legislators have gone out of their way to stigmatize and marginalize transgender North Carolinians by pushing ugly and fundamentally untrue stereotypes that are based on fear and ignorance and not supported by the experiences of more than 200 cities…,” said Sarah Preston of the ACLU of North Carolina.

“I can’t use the men’s room. I won’t go back to the men’s room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there,” a man who identifies as female and goes by the name Madeline Goss told WSOC-TV.

House Speaker Tim Moore said that he believed that the bill was important and reflected the views of constituents.

“I am glad that my colleagues joined together today to pass this bill that overrules the foolish and dangerous restroom ordinance passed by the city council and mayor of Charlotte,” he remarked in a statement. “North Carolinians have spoken loud and clear that they are deeply concerned about what this ordinance means for the safety and expectation of privacy for women and children. In all the years I have served in the General Assembly I have never seen such a negative reaction to an ordinance passed by a municipality.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

I am glad that North Carolina supported the majority, and protected children.

Cady555

Children were not in danger. Some people just need to be able to treat others as second class to feel whole.

truelinguist

A man who pretends to be a woman is much lower than second class.

Cady555

But children are not in danger. People just need to pee.

Rachelthemillenial

The hate is all from your side. You assume Christians hate because you hate Christians so much. We don’t feel hate toward immoral people, we only feel pity. That is the Christian way.

Slidellman4life

Troll post. Flagged.

scottrose

Flag a Christian on a Christian blog?

That’s stupid.

Slidellman4life

No they are not.

Scribbles Scribbles

Not a fan of free speech, aye?

Slidellman4life

Not a fan of anti-Christian trolling and bigotry.

gizmo23

Christians seem to hate many people

Slidellman4life

Children were not in danger? Not women either? According to whom, Sherlock?

Cady555

Evidence.

Scribbles Scribbles

“But children are not in danger.” Neither are transgendered people any more than if they use either rest room. If these MEN are getting “beaten to death”, it’s not the facility, it’s people doing the beating. Women have been raped in women’s restrooms, should they start using the men’s room? To avoid being raped? These are obtuse arguments that make no sense. Let’s just leave it as a chromosome issue: Men use the men’s room, women use the women’s room, people get put in the clink for committing crimes.

Balerion

You mean like Mike Huckabee would have done back when he was in high school if he knew he could get to shower with the girls?

Richard

No Cady555 it’s treating the majority as the majority. At what point in a Democracy did it become correct to do for the few over the many. I didn’t need this to feel whole, but certainly glad it passed.

TheKingOfRhye

This country is not, never has been, and should never become, a pure-democracy, mob-rule, tyranny-of-the-majority system. The will of the majority does not always rule.

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest
minority on earth is the individual).” – Ayn Rand

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

I was babysat by a lesbian couple, and gay male couple. They are not second class, but their opinion of what children should be exposed to is horrendous and perverted. Sexual perversion should not be imposed on our children.

WorldGoneCrazy

Amen, JesusFlunky! It is nice to see that common sense and sanity prevailed, but who would have guessed that even some Democrats, 11 of them, would vote in a sane and moral fashion?!?

gizmo23

So now even if I think you might be gay I can deny you basic rights. It also takes away local control

WorldGoneCrazy

What does being gay have to do with this article? Are you off of your meds again, Giz?

gizmo23

Read then law then come back and apologize to me. You won’t of course

0pus35

Who would apologize to you, you’re the scum of the universe, vile little troll. You’re not even human.

WorldGoneCrazy

Why do you hate innocent children so much that you would be against protecting them in bathrooms and wombs?

gizmo23

Why do you hate gay people so much?

gizmo23

Still no apology, not surprised. Humility is not a good trait I guess

WorldGoneCrazy

Dance for me, pro-abort and pedophile apologist!

gizmo23

No honor in you and you falsely accuse. Nice faith you practice

WorldGoneCrazy

Do you want me to bring out the disgusting posts you have made on Live Action News, Giz?

Do you want me to post what you claimed yourself to be doing in your basement?

Do you want me to show people where you admit to “oral sex posts” on DISQUS?

Do you want me to show others where you lacked compassion for a victim of sex trafficking and made an obscene comment regarding same?

The problem I have with you is that I agreed not to go onto a certain website and I lived up to that agreement, you sir haven’t

WorldGoneCrazy

What did I agree to, Gizmo? This is a Christian site we are on right now. I am sure I never agreed to stay off of this site.

I am not trying to humiliate you, Gizmo, but you keep pushing me to the point where I have to tell the folks on this site about you.

gizmo23

I don’t see how in anyway I force you to blackmail and threaten me

WorldGoneCrazy

I cannot threaten you with your own words, LOL. I am not asking anything from you – just that you not push me and that you remain civil. That’s not blackmail, it’s kindergarten ethics.

JeffreyRo55

Flagged. You need to move on, girl.

Slidellman4life

Non-sequitur.

gizmo23

It happens here a lot

0pus35

Stupid c0cksucker, go die of AIDS, you loathsome trash.

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

Even some democrats are pro life. Hopefully God is empowering some to take a more vocal stand.

Anne Green

And most Republicans favor choice, a little-reported fact. It’s amazing how a minority fraction can hijack a government to implement their own radical religious will and force it on other people, even people of other faiths. Oh wait! ISIS has the same strategy…

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

“Minority fraction”? Keep talking, you are abolishing your own arguments and revealing your own hypocrisy by defending the rights of a zealous and very small group of Trans people (minority) wishing to have access to the most private room people frequent. The majority of people do not want this. It does not matter if the LGBT minority has corrupted and hijacked the media or government, the majority does not want this imposed on them. This includes religous and non religous people.

Scribbles Scribbles

I am glad that North Carolina isn’t forcing people to recognize the minority’s skewed version of reality

Anne Green

This bill isn’t about protecting children or women, JesusFlunky. And since when does the majority dictate the minority’s civil rights? Insert “black” or “Jewish” or “disabled” in for trans-person. Feels good to know you just made a person’s life that much more difficult, doesn’t it? Kick puppies, too, in your spare time? I don’t know, maybe you skipped out on the whole civil rights thing in high school (assuming you bothered to go).

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

A chosen sexual preference has nothing on disabilities or race. I know plenty of grown adults that still have anxiety from the sexual abuse they endured as a child and struggle trusting people or letting their guard down especially in a place such as a bathroom. I am one of those, and do not want what I endured to happen to my children, or myself while I am in the restroom. I can’t be in the men’s and women’s at the same time to protect my children. Common sense has prevailed for a while now in regards to restrooms being assigned to the proper sex. Give me the data on suicide rates, depression rates, and relational problems for Trans gender people oppressed cause they can’t use the bathroom of their “preferred” gender compared to those that have been sexually abused, and you will see you are the one kicking puppies becsuse they have a natural fear of predators.

Anne Green

You provide NO statistical data supporting your assertion that transpeople are predators. And guess what? There is none. I’m sorry for the abuse you’ve suffered, but don’t pin it on the wrong folks. Your anecdotal info on children who’ve suffered abuse have nothing to do with transpeople. Actually, children are FAR more likely to suffer abuse at the hands of their parents, neighbors, and friends.

Being trans does not equate to a difference in sexual preference, I’m assuming you’re referring to sexual identity. There is compelling evidence that genetic arrays produce a spectrum of sexuality and differences in gender identification; and 2) because of this, gay, bi- and transpersons deserve compassion, respect, and equal protection under the law. Doing so takes NOTHING away from you. But it means everything to them.

Nearly 41% of transpeople attempt suicide, according to the Williams Institute (Google it) due to bigotry, misinformation, and hostility towards them. Too bad you choose to reinforce those very qualities, how very Christian of you.

George Jenkins

It doesn’t take a lot of evidence to tell a penis from a vagina. That is what this is about. The queer ones always try to deflect the discussion. It is not about being predators or molestation. It is about an objectively determined body parts

Anne Green

First of all, I’m not “queer” or homosexual if that’s what you’re referring to. Nor am I a trans person. Nor did I deflect the discussion, I disputed JesusFlunky’s points one by one. And who is going to police who has a penis or a vagina in these bathrooms to determine who belongs in which one? You’re making a mountain out of a molehill just to stir up hatred against people who are different from you, people who cause you no harm whatsoever. How very compassionate.

George Jenkins

Didn’t say you were queer and wouldn’t care if you were. One rather easy way to tell is who pees in a urinal. It is you who makes a mountain out of a mole hill, and try to deflect the argument back the other way. People with xx chromosomes pee in one room and people with xy pee in another. Stop trying to change nature.

Anne Green

Not trying to change nature, trying to address for differences in it. Sexual identification can come from an array of genetic factors. Some people are more or less one sex or the other, not all of which is reflected in their genetalia. Some people have both.

I’ve actually used a urinal. No small feat and it was purely out of desperation, but it happened nonetheless lol. So that may not be the best litmus test IMHO.

George Jenkins

I don’t believe there is anything humble about you or your opinion. You want to impose a deviant preference on normal people. XX or XY. it’s that simple Live with it. The phony intellectual gender thing has nothing to do with the issue. The new definition of gender is merely a mental preference. And you may be a person of many talents when it comes to peeing, but I suspect it would be rather obvious to any man interested whether you were peeing normally or not at a urinal.

Anne Green

Why would you think I’m humble or not? And who cares anyway? I don’t want to impose anything on you. Go to the bathroom that suits you. Just don’t impose your genitalia litmus test on others. Besides, I would think most women would prefer a male identifying as female sharing the restroom (if you call doing your business in a stall “sharing”) vs a female identifying as male. So you’ve not really solved anything anyway. And again, who’s going to monitor? No one.

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

Christians are to tell the truth, even when it hurts the feelings of those that wish to sweep the word sin under the carpet. You can hide behind whatever data you wish here on earth, but it does not change the word or power of God. He is real,and he is righteous. It would be hateful of me to spare your feelings by agreeing with you. He hates sin, but he also loves his creation that he made physically man or woman. He provided a way for those bound up in confusion over their identity to be free from their lifestyle of sin. It is through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Anne Green

Then let God judge them, JesusFlunky, not you. Lest you be judged for wearing men’s garments, jeans and pants. These, too, were condemned to be worn by women under the Old Law.

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

You are sadly mistaken. During the time the old law was written, men did not wear pants. Imagine that. It was wrong for one to present themselves in attire that would intentionally decieve someone into believing a person was of the opposite sex.

Anne Green

Pants and jeans have been men’s garments for hundreds if not thousands of years, and still are. So according to the Old Law, it’s a sin for women to wear them. Likewise for men to wear dresses, you cannot have it both ways. But regardless, it’s not your place to judge them.

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

Funny, Jesus never knocked John the Baptist for making judgemental statements against Herod… But thank you for making me laugh about the jeans and thousands of years statement. If you would like to borrow my bible, you can. It has all the pages in it.

Anne Green

Id laugh too if the consequences of your hysterical rantings weren’t so tragic. Fear-mongering for no reason other than to spread hatred and bigotry should never be the Christian way. You’ve lost the argument with statistics, you’ve lost it with facts, and on a Scriptural basis. But then again. I’m not surprised. You consider yourself a “virtuous mistress” ?? As opposed to a Bride of the Church?? And a “rule breaker”? Guess you only expect everyone else to follow the rules. Sheesh! Even your profile reeks of hypocrisy. No, I’m not surprised in the least.

https://jesusflunky.com JesusFlunky

Thank you for following me, I am flattered.

Balerion

Let’s see how much the residents of North Carolina actually like having their tax dollars going toward enforcing this abomination, and the costs of litigation for all the lawsuits that are guaranteed to result from it. Oh, and Scalia’s dead, so if this ever does get to the Supreme Court you can kiss it goodbye anyway.

EDIT: Maybe all the state legislators who voted for this turd should be forced to pay the legal expenses resulting from it out of their own personal assets.

http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

Litigation shmitigation. The residents of Charlotte are saved from the abomination of having to rebuild every single public bathroom to maintain their freedom to safe poop. You say it’s going to cost? That cost is a given: you’re going to sue whether you get your way or not.

Balerion

Except for non-gender conforming people, who it would seem would only maintain their freedom to safe poop in their own homes. Do you really expect that someone who looks, dresses and presents as a woman is going to be safe using the men’s restroom?

And if they do have to rebuild every public restroom so that EVERYONE has the freedom to safely be able to use public restrooms, then – and I’m not at all sorry for the pun – tough sh*t.

Rachelthemillenial

Flagged.
You can’t make your point without childish obscenity, you have no point worth making.

Slidellman4life

Let’s see how much the residents of North Carolina actually like having their tax dollars going toward enforcing this abomination

Apparently you are ignorant of the background on this new law.

Josey

Thumbs up North Carolina!

acontraryview

So you are pleased that a business can now legally turn away a customer merely for being gay; that a company can refuse to hire someone merely for being gay; and that a company can fire an employee merely for being gay, correct?

bowie1

This is not about being gay…this is about using the bathroom of their own birth gender. If you are going to comment on something make sure you get your facts correct.

SFBruce

Acontraryview is absolutely correct. This action will invalidate local ordinances forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment and public accommodations. It’s tragic that North Carolina has chosen to take a huge step backwards in human rights just to pander to those seeking a solution to a problem which doesn’t exist. In fact, it actually creates a dangerous situation for trans men and trans women who will be forced to use public restrooms when it’s obvious they’re in the wrong one.

Slidellman4life

Acontraryview is wrong. So are you. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with “sexual orientation” or employment. Period.

Please stop telling lies.

SFBruce

Washington Post, 3/24/16
“North Carolina on Wednesday passed a sweeping law overturning gay and transgender protections at the local level and requiring students to use restrooms that correspond to the sex listed on their birth certificates.” (Emphasis mine)

Forbes, 3/24/16
“The North Carolina General Assembly yesterday passed legislation that locks out lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens from anti-discrimination laws in employment and public accommodations. In a hastily convened, one-day special session of the legislature, House Bill 2 went from publication to ratification to being signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory in 12 hours.”

The effect of this law, without any doubt whatsoever, is to invalidate existing LGBT anti-discrimination laws, and to prohibit passing them in the future. Before you start calling others liars, you may want to check the facts yourself.

Slidellman4life

Again, I did. I stand corrected, and I really don’t care.

gizmo23

Read the law then apologize

0pus35

You’re a pedophile, you’re nobody.

Scribbles Scribbles

Gizmo, are you an attorney? Say “no” and apologize.

gizmo23

No I just read the law

Michael C

Transgender men and women are free to use the bathroom consistent with their gender identity in the State of Georgia.

Transgender women who were born biologically male can legally use the women’s bathroom in Georgia.

Transgender men who were born biologically female can legally use the men’s bathroom in Georgia.

This is a fact.

With or without this legislation, it is 100% legal for transgender people in Georgia to amend their birth certificates to change their sex and use the correct bathrooms.

Slidellman4life

1) This is North Carolina.
2) This is about taking the necessary steps to protect women and children in North Carolina by not placating the mentally ill and sexual predators.

You forget all this became necessary when Charlotte decided to pass a law that would allow “transgendered” people to freely enter public restrooms that did not correspond to their actual gender in spite of overwhelming opposition from people who actually lived there.

Michael C

Thank you for the correction, my comment has been edited.

Transgender people in North Carolina can freely enter public restrooms matching their gender identity.

Transgender people in North Carolina can amend the sex on their birth certificates and official state identification cards. This means that it is required that they use the facilities matching their official and legal sex.

Slidellman4life

That used to be the case. As of April 1, that will be no longer.

Michael C

No, that is still the case. A transgender female (anatomical male transitioned to female) cannot use the men’s room. They are legally required to use the women’s room.

This legislation means that a store can kick a transgender person out for using the correct restroom. This also means that they can be fired from their job, refused housing, and denied service at stores and restaurants.

Slidellman4life

I have read the bill, Michael. That is not what it says. Wearing a dress when you have male body parts does not entitle you to use the ladies’ room.

Michael C

This has nothing to do with the bill. This is existing North Carolina law.

A transgender person in North Carolina can officially and legally change their sex. They are issued an amended birth certificate and their drivers license reflects the change in their sex.

If a person’s driver’s license says ‘male,’ which bathroom do you think they are legally required to use?

Slidellman4life

And that law changes April 1. Do try to keep up.

Guest

no, because the metric the law uses is their official sex not their birth sex. They can use the bathroom that matches their legal sex and North Carolina allows that to be changed on both birth certificates and drivers licenses.

Slidellman4life

You obviously have not read the bill. It uses the word “biological” as in “biological sex.” In other words, the parts you were born with. Not the way you are feeling.

Balerion

Then which room, I ask again, are they to use?

Slidellman4life

They use the mens’ room. Asked and answered. Now go outside and play.

Ambulance Chaser

Why?

Slidellman4life

Because they are a biological male.

acontraryview

“in spite of overwhelming opposition from people who actually lived there.”

Basis?

gizmo23

Did you even read the article or law?

Scribbles Scribbles

“birth gender” is the same as “gender”. The word “transgender” is not nearly scientific. We do not have the capabilities to change our chromosomes.

Guest

why do you think gender is ‘chromosome’ based? people without a ‘Y’ chromosome develop as phenotypical males and those with it can develop as phenotypical females in a spectrum to male.

We are only now starting to understanding the breadth and scope of Androgenic Insensitivity Syndrome in those born with a ‘Y’ chromosome.

‘Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.’

acontraryview

I suggest you take your own advice and get your facts correct before commenting. The bill enshrines discrimination into law by making it legal to turn away a customer merely for being gay; that a company can refuse to hire someone merely for being gay; and that a company can fire an employee merely for being gay.

Review the actual law and then get back to me, bowie.

gizmo23

If you are a bigot. This law goes way beyond bathrooms. Even if you think someone might be gay you can deny them a home, job, etc.

Slidellman4life

None of that is relevant.

Balerion

Look on the bright side – at least “douchebag” isn’t a protected class (not yet anyway). So at least we still get to tell bigots to go sod off.

Though no doubt when one of these knuckle-dragging trogolodytes is fired for using a homophobic or transphobic slur they’ll throw a huge temper tantrum and sue on the (totally bogus) basis of “religious discrimination.”

scottrose

Drama queen, put a sock in it.

Scribbles Scribbles

I doubt that. If that were the case, you would be too scared to say it on the Internet, you would be in hiding.

WorldGoneCrazy

Notice how quickly you get called a “bigot”, Josey, by the “tolerant” ones. That is what happens when Giz has no intellectual argument: name-calling and poo-throwing. 🙂

God bless North Carolina for protecting the children of its state!

gogo0

“no intelligent argument” , coming from the guy who posted “why do you hate innocent children” earlier in the thread.

gizmo23

Read the law yet? Apoligy coming? Coward

acontraryview

Wow. Legalizing discrimination. Sad day for NC.

truelinguist

So sad that anyone with a conscience is applauding.

Slidellman4life

Yes, they are. It’s because those with a conscience are also those with brains who don’t believe the safety of women and children should be compromised so some mentally ill people can play make believe.

Ambulance Chaser

Whose safety is being compromised by allowing people to use the bathroom that matches the gender they identify as?

Slidellman4life

Any man can put on a dress and say he is a woman. Bye bye, strawman.

Ambulance Chaser

Yes, and?

Slidellman4life

Yes

Thanks.

Guest

and any man that does can be detained and arrested as the guy the ting to make the same erroneous ‘point’ you are went into a Washington women’s locker room.

Slidellman4life

huh?

Guest

Fixed. Auto correct ate entire words.

acontraryview

How is the safety of women and children compromised?

Slidellman4life

People like you make me want to grab you by the shoulders and shake you violently while saying, “What the bleep is the matter with you!?!”

You only care about the agenda, but not the consequences. Women have every right, every reason to be concerned. And that means less than nothing to you.

It is precisely your attitude that presents a clear and present danger to women and children across this country.

acontraryview

“People like you”

Please describe what people like me are like.

“make me want to grab you by the shoulders and shake you violently ”

You seem quite enamored with taking violent action against others. First, you suggest that it is reasonable for people to give other people a beating. Now you suggest you want to shake me (and people like me) violently. You seem to have anger issues.

“Women have every right, every reason to be concerned.”

Based on what?

“It is precisely your attitude that presents a clear and present danger to women and children across this country.”

Laws of this nature have been in place in many locations for quite some time. There has never been any case where women or children have faced any danger because of these laws. So, tell me, what is your basis for suggesting that these laws present a “clear and present danger”?

Slidellman4life

Congratulations! With this post, you are saying you do not care at all about the privacy and safety of women and children in public restrooms and locker rooms. All that matters is your agenda.

You are seriously sick. Do not ever talk to me again.

acontraryview

“you are saying you do not care at all about the privacy and safety of women and children in public restrooms and locker rooms.”

I have said nothing in my posts that supports your statement.

So you can’t cite what people are “like” who are “like” me. Got it. Thanks.

So you can’t cite a basis upon which women have every reason to be concerned. Got it. Thanks.

So you can’t cite a basis for suggesting that these laws present a “clear and present danger”. Got it. Thanks

“You are seriously sick. Do not ever talk to me again.”

So when faced with questions you can’t answer you resort to insulting and then running away. No surprise there.

acontraryview

Agreed.

TampaZeke

I was so heartbroken that I turned a cartwheel.

acontraryview

Unusual reaction, but to each their own.

Craig Martin

Either a 5 year old has to deal with a man in the rest room with her, or a man has to deal with other men in the rest room with him…
I think we should let the 5 year old off the hook and require the man to deal with his own choices.

Jalapeno

Or..a five year old girl has to deal with someone who identifies as a dude in the bathroom with her.

Or..a five year old boy needs to deal with someone who identifies as a woman in the bathroom with him.

Michael C

There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

According to the federal government, it’s perfectly legal to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations to gay and trans citizens.

There is no Georgia state law prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yesterday, there were a few cities in Georgia that protected gay and trans citizens from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Today, the state government has stripped those protections and it is now legal to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations to gay and trans citizens in all of Georgia.

This type of discrimination is legal in most states.

The federal government has repeatedly refused to pass legislation to protect gay and trans citizens from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations despite the fact that a strong majority of U.S. citizens favors such legislation. Most people mistakenly believe that gay and trans people are already protected from discrimination.

The Skeptical Chymist

I think you mean North Carolina, not Georgia, Michael C.

Michael C

Gah! edited, thank you. My head is filled with all of the anti-gay and anti-trans legislation going on all over the country.

scottrose

Pobrecita.
Maybe you should get a job instead of trolling constantly.

Guest

it’s becoming clear that many people don’t know what the term ‘trolling’ means. just talking about a subject isn’t ‘trolling’..

The Skeptical Chymist

It is hard to keep up with it all, isn’t it?

Slidellman4life

But what is your point?

Michael C

My point is that the North Carolina legislature just nullified local ordinances that protected gay and trans people from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations making it legal for a landlord to refuse to rent an apartment to a person just because they’re transgender or for an business to fire an employee just because they’re gay or for a restaurant to refuse to serve a customer just because they’re gay throughout the state.

Slidellman4life

This has absolutely nothing to do with ghey people. And it has nothing to do with housing or employment. Those are red herrings designed to create confusion and hatred for a law designed solely and specifically to protect women and children.

But I know people like you do not care. It’s all about getting what you want. Who cares about the consequences?

Well, Paco, we do. Which is why every time you spout your lies, I will jump in to call you on it.

Michael C

This has absolutely nothing to do with ghey people. And it has nothing to do with housing or employment.

You are incorrect.

The state legislature nullified any local ordinance that prohibited discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

This is not a red herring. This is what happened. Read the legislation, specifically Part III.

Slidellman4life

I did and I stand corrected. But you know what? I really don’t care. Why should anyone get another place at the table because of whom they choose to sleep with anyway?

Balerion

1950’s version: “But you know what? I really don’t care. Why should anyone get another place at the table because of the color of their skin?”

Slidellman4life

Mason’s Second Law: In any debate over homosexuality, sooner or later someone will compare sexual behavior to skin color.

gogo0

your group’s crutch argument is “think of the children!!!1!”. even if the comparison to racism was inappropriate, the bar was already set at strawman.

Slidellman4life

Strawman, huh? Take a look at the video “Women: Decide For Yourselves” on YouTube and see what kind of a strawman it is.

gogo0

none of the pervs in that video were trans, and this law nor the existing laws stop them from being pervs and endangering people

Slidellman4life

1) Whether or not they are “trans” is irrelevant.

2) At least the existing laws can result in these (would-be) predators arrested. Can you imagine if they didn’t?

gogo0

if a trans/straight/black/bilingual/tall/French/curly-haired person molests someone in a restroom, they will be arrested under current laws

Slidellman4life

Or, when you have nothing, troll.

gogo0

because you ignored it.

regardless , i’d rather be a troll on a web forum than a troll on American society like you

Slidellman4life

Of course I ignored it. I have a problem with serving women and children to sexual predators. The fact you don’t says much more about you than anything else.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You should apologize to any and all females in your life, in that you do not care if they are harmed, as long as a man in a dress is able to enter the ladies’ room!

acontraryview

“1) Whether or not they are “trans” is irrelevant.”

Given that the discussion is focusing on “trans” people, how is that NOT relevant?

“2) At least the existing laws can result in these (would-be) predators arrested. Can you imagine if they didn’t?”

The law makes no provision for arrest.

Slidellman4life

Given that the discussion is focusing on “trans” people, how is that NOT relevant?

Watch the video. That’s why.

The law makes no provision for arrest.

Common sense. Ever hear of it?

acontraryview

What video are you referring to?

“Common sense. Ever hear of it?”

Actual wording of the law. Ever hear of it?

Slidellman4life

What video are you referring to?

Scroll up seven posts.

Actual wording of the law. Ever hear of it?

What happens if you intentionally violate a state law, genius?

acontraryview

“Scroll up seven posts.”

None of those involved transgender males nor did they occur in locations where such laws existed. To suggest that those instances were a result of such laws is simply false.

“What happens if you intentionally violate a state law, genius?”

That depends on what the law says regarding consequences. What THIS law says is that cities/counties may not pass laws which prohibit discrimination based upon sexuality or being transgender. It does NOT spell out any consequences for individuals who use a bathroom that is not consistent with their biological gender, genius.

Slidellman4life

None of those involved transgender males nor did they occur in locations where such laws existed. To suggest that those instances were a result of such laws is simply false.

Such is specifically cited in the very first case. Which means you never actually watched it.

That depends on what the law says regarding consequences. What THIS law says is that cities/counties may not pass laws which prohibit discrimination based upon sexuality or being transgender. It does NOT spell out any consequences for individuals who use a bathroom that is not consistent with their biological gender, genius.

So…you do not think you will be arrested?

It goes into effect April 1. How about you make a special trip to NC, put on a dress, and go into a ladies’ room that is occupied, especially with children. Then come back with an after action report.

That way, we will all know for sure.

acontraryview

The first case in the video involved Thomas Lee Benson. He is not a transsexual.

“So…you do not think you will be arrested?”

I’m not transsexual so I would not face that situation.

“It goes into effect April 1. How about you make a special trip to NC, put on a dress, and go into a ladies’ room that is occupied, especially with children. Then come back with an after action report.”

You seem to have a misunderstanding of this law. This law does NOT provide for legal actions that should be taken if a person uses a restroom not consistent with their biological gender. What it does is say that local entities (cities or counties) may not pass laws which allow transgenders to use a restroom according to their identified gender.

There is no state law in NC that specifically makes it illegal to use a restroom designated for one gender if you are of the opposite gender. Therefore, there is no punishment set forth. Consequently, there would be no basis for an arrest under state law.

Guest

what sexual behavior? I can’t think of any such thing that isn’t done by many more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

Slidellman4life

Sexual. Behavior. There are people out there who choose to identify and define themselves solely and specifically by it.

Guest

you mean straight people?

Slidellman4life

What a stupid troll. You cannot do better than that?

Guest

obviously you don’t know what a troll is. one thing it’s not is someone just saying something you don’t like.

any reasonable person knows that heterosexual identification is all but assumed and very much the standard. If you don’t think so go up to someone with a wedding ring and ask if they have a husband or a wife – their reaction will show you just how prevalent people identifying as straight is.

if all you have are ad hominums why bother posting at all?

Slidellman4life

Reasonable people know not to say something so breathtakingly dumb.

Heterosexuals (hereto known as normal) don’t live in a sex centered world. Homosexuals do. But you know that.

Guest

Ha! Anyone that says that is in denial, everything from chips to cars are sold with sex to heterosexual men. The fact is there is about 30% of men who are obsessed with sex, gay or straight. You are mistaking a guy thing for an orientation one.

Slidellman4life

Denial is a river in Egypt.

My world does not revolve around sex, and I don’t know any normal people that do.

However, on the homo side, you have ghey this, ghey that, ghey something else.

You are making foolish comments. Stop.

Guest

And the only reason they say gay is because straight is assumed.

But from looking at your comment history I can see you are just on vacation from under some bridge in Norway. Have fun on your vacation.

Slidellman4life

You can’t be intellectually honest so you commit to calling me a troll?

Project much?

Have a nice day.

Ambulance Chaser

What is “another place at the table?” They just want one. And now the NC legislature has taken that away.

Slidellman4life

No. They already have rights as citizens of this country. These people wish to force their way into the dressing/locker/restrooms of the opposite sex when their motivation is questionable at least and at the expense of actual women and children who have very reasonable, righteous concerns.

acontraryview

So you don’t care that a business can now legally turn away a customer merely for being gay; that a company can refuse to hire someone merely for being gay; and that a company can fire an employee merely for being gay, correct?

Why should someone get a “place at the table” because of what religion they chose to believe in?

“because of whom they choose to sleep with anyway?”

So then you would be OK with celibate gays having a place at the table, correct?

Slidellman4life

So you don’t care that a business can now legally turn away a customer merely for being gay;

Something the bill does not say

Why should someone get a “place at the table” because of what religion they chose to believe in?

Because of the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So then you would be OK with celibate gays having a place at the table, correct?

They already do as citizens of the USA.

acontraryview

“Something the bill does not say”

Yes, it does. I suggest you review the bill in its entirety so that you will no longer make comments that are factually inaccurate.

“Because of the United States Constitution”

Where in the Constitution is the issue of non-discrimination based upon religious belief covered?

“the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

The CRA provides for the inclusion of religious belief as a covered category, but that was not my question. My question was why that should be included. You put forth that sexuality should not be covered because of whom someone chooses to sleep with (which, by the way, is irrelevant to laws which forbid discrimination based upon sexuality) which indicates that you believe matters of choice should not be covered. Religious belief is also a choice. Therefore, it should not be covered using your view that choice issues should not be covered, correct?

“They already do as citizens of the USA.”

No, they do not. In most places in the US they can still be denied service at a business, employment, and housing.

Slidellman4life

Yes, it does.

I did. It extends to employment and housing. Not potential customers.

As for rest of your post, you display an ignorance of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, of course, you could be playing dumb but assuming you are not…

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says Congress cannot create its own religion or keep people from practicing theirs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 further says you cannot be withheld from employment, housing, etc on the basis of your religion.

You do not like that? Then you work to change it by getting a Constitutional amendment or getting the act repealed. You do not get to simply ignore it.

And this is not about religion anyway. This is about a group of people who think sleeping with people of their own sex/gender (for the terms are not mutually exclusive) entitles them to something more than what they already have.

A person’s sexuality is not any of my business. But they make it my business by taking it out of the bedroom, where it belongs, putting it in my face, demanding acceptance, asking for special treatment based on their behavior and openly going after kids.

That entitles you to diddlysquat. Period.

acontraryview

“I did. It extends to employment and housing. Not potential customers..”

Apparently you did not, otherwise you would have seen the section regarding “public accommodation”.

“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says Congress cannot create its own religion or keep people from practicing theirs.”

And that would relate to discrimination in matters of housing, employment, and public accommodation, how?

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 further says you cannot be withheld from employment, housing, etc on the basis of your religion.”

If that were already covered in the Constitution, then there would have been no need to include it in the CRA, would there? So, clearly, discrimination regarding religious belief is not a part of the constitution.

“You do not like that?”

I’m fine with it. YOU were the one who suggested that issues of choice are not worthy of people having a “seat at the table”. Apparently that view only applies to issues you do not agree with. There’s a word for that. It’s “hypocrisy”.

“This is about a group of people who think sleeping with people of their own sex/gender (for the terms are not mutually exclusive) entitles them to something more than what they already have.”

No, that is not what it is about. It is about sexuality not being a basis upon which it is legal to discriminate.

“But they make it my business by taking it out of the bedroom, where it belongs, putting it in my face”

Yeah. Like the heterosexuals. Walking down the street holding hands, showing affection in public, putting pictures of their spouses on their desks, etc. Constantly shoving their sexuality in the faces of others. They should leave their sexuality in the bedroom where it belongs, right?

“demanding acceptance”

You are free to accept or not accept whatever you care to. No one can “demand” that you accept something.

“asking for special treatment”

How is it “special” to seek equal treatment under the law and not be discriminated against?

“based on their behavior”

No request for equal treatment under the law nor protection from discrimination is being sought based upon a particular behavior. Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait.

“openly going after kids.”

Going after kids in what way?

gizmo23

Read the law

Slidellman4life

read below

bowie1

That seems to be the problem here. Of course transgender women who identify as male would be hard pressed to use a urinal and will still need to use a toilet in a stall.

Slidellman4life

There is no problem. If you are a man in a dress living in North Carolina, come April 1, you are going to need to use the men’s restroom. If you choose to go in the womens’ restroom, assuming you do not get spotted and a real man gives you the beating you rightly deserve, you will be arrested. It’s all that simple.

Balerion

So then in that case someone with a beard and wearing a man’s suit (and that at first glance anyone would assume is a man) but had female parts would be (legally) forced to use the women’s restroom. (Or do they not get to use the restroom at all and have to hold it in until they get home?)

Slidellman4life

So then in that case someone with a beard and wearing a man’s suit (and that at first glance anyone would assume is a man) but had female parts would be (legally) forced to use the women’s restroom.

That is correct. It sounds like you have a problem with that.

Balerion

And how does one tell just by looking at the person (with their clothes on)? Are people now going to be expected to present their private parts for inspection before being allowed to use a public restroom?

Slidellman4life

It becomes obvious when they take their pants down.

*smh*

Balerion

And who, might I ask, is going to be looking at them while their pants are down? What are you, some sort of pervert?

Slidellman4life

ROTFLMBO

Balerion

You obviously are some sort of pervert.

Slidellman4life

You are obviously trolling. Flagged.

Balerion

Someone’s obviously in deep denial about themselves.

gizmo23

It want bathrooms do people drop their pants for all to see?

gizmo23

So are you going to be the genital police?

acontraryview

” assuming you do not get spotted and a real man gives you the beating you rightly deserve”

What would a “real man” be doing in the women’s restroom?

Are you actually suggesting that the appropriate action in this instance would be for another person to give that individual “the beating they rightly deserve”? And, tell me, why do they deserve to be beaten?

Slidellman4life

Let me explain this to you, even though you already know where I am going to go before I even write this down:

Men who put on a dress to get into the ladies’ room do not belong there. Women do not want them in there. And parents of small children most certainly don’t.

So how do you handle this? Simple: You don’t go in there. And if you do, you deserve whatever consequences come with it.

acontraryview

“Men who put on a dress to get into the ladies’ room do not belong there.”

Agreed. Nor is that a description of a transsexual.

“Women do not want them in there. And parents of small children most certainly don’t.”

How is it you feel empowered to speak for all women and parents?

“you deserve whatever consequences come with it.”

So then you support people beating other people, correct?

Slidellman4life

Agreed.

Good.

How is it you feel empowered to speak for all women and parents?

How is it you do not care about the privacy and safety of women and children? Why is that less important than making sure some pervert is able to get into the ladies’ room?

So then you support people beating other people, correct?

I support perverts being physically persuaded to stay out of the ladies’ room, yes. Don’t try to twist my words.

acontraryview

“How is it you do not care about the privacy and safety of women and children? Why is that less important than making sure some pervert is able to get into the ladies’ room?”

So you can’t explain how you are empowered to speak for all women and parents. Got it. Thanks.

What have I said that would lead you to believe that I don’t care about the privacy and safety of women and children? What is your basis for suggesting that allowing transsexuals to use the restroom of their identified gender places women and children in harms way? What evidence to you have to support your statement?

“I support perverts being physically persuaded to stay out of the ladies’ room, yes.”

So you support people beating other people.

“Don’t try to twist my words.”

I didn’t twist your words. You were very clear. You said that it is acceptable for people to beat other people when they have done something they aren’t supposed to do. Why stop at restroom use? If someone cuts you off in traffic and puts you in harms way as a result, why not corner that person, drag them out of their car, and give them a beating?

Michael C

Every bathroom I’ve ever been in ever has had stalls.

I know of men who use the stall to urinate due to medical issues.

0pus35

Men use urinals.

Apparently you didn’t know that.

Jalapeno

..Some men.

Ambulance Chaser

Wow, you really are threatened by anything that deviates from your norms, aren’t you?

TampaZeke

Troll

Diaris

That describes gays.

Amos Moses

Unless they are “pee-shy”.

Bob Johnson

Na not shy. Some of us just have prostate cancer.

gizmo23

Not all do

Andrew

Your demographic group has lots of uses for stalls. They show up fairly often on our local news.

JustNTyme

“Medical issues” such as exchange of body fluids.

Balerion

There are actually products available that enable transmen to stand up to pee using a urinal just like every other (anatomically normal) man.

Though come to think of it, I probably shouldn’t be bringing this up here as now Slidellman4life is going to be craning his neck to check to make sure that the guy standing at the urinal next to him is pissing out of a real cock.

Slidellman4life

Flagged for trolling and profanity.

Amos Moses

If it aint broke then don’t fix it……………….

Reason2012

Of course the perversion activists seek to discriminate against and violate the privacy rights of 99+% of the population to accommodate far less than 1% of the population, all in the name of prohibiting discrimination and privacy rights.

Be heard, America – continue to make sure your representatives realize they are supposed to listen to We The People, not to We The Perversion activists.

Jalapeno

First off, i’m not sure what this has to do with “perversion”. Why does everyone think that gender identity is about sex?

Second, don’t assume that 99% of people are okay with forcing a trans-male to use the womens bathroom. THAT would be more of a violation in my eyes.

Reason2012

Women and girls are expecting the right to privacy and not be discriminated against to not have a person with male genitals walk in on them (called males). If you were born a male, calling yourself female and/or mutilating your genitals doesn’t change this.

And anyone who would mutilate their genitalia needs mental help, not enabling.

Jalapeno

I’m expecting privacy from not having someone who identifies as male in the bathroom with me.

Why does my privacy not count?

Reason2012

Bathrooms are about genitalia genetics, not people’s wishes.

Jalapeno

I don’t give a crap about a persons genitals. Heck, there’s even a decent chance that they don’t have a penis anymore.

I give a crap about whether or not they look like a man. I do not want someone who looks like a man to be forced to use the bathroom with me. I consider that a violation of my privacy.

So..why is one persons wishes to force that man to use the bathroom with me worth more than my wish to not have him in there?

Balerion

So then I assume you really wouldn’t want a transman in the restroom with you.

Now, I should think that one ought to use the room that would attract the least amount of unwanted attention – i.e., the one that better matches their outward appearance. If one has just started to transition from male to female, and still looks outwardly male, then it seems that it would be less of a fuss to use the men’s room rather than have to explain to everyone looking on that they just began to transition to female (and hope that they are understanding and accepting, which is far from a guarantee in this society).

What this new law effectively does is make it so that transgendered individuals can’t use any public restrooms except unisex ones; if they use the one that corresponds to their gender identity and outward appearance (specifically the latter) then they risk arrest, and if they use the one that corresponds to their birth gender then they out themselves as being transgendered, while causing a huge commotion and possibly putting themselves at great personal risk.

Jalapeno

I’d really prefer someone who looks like a guy not in the bathroom with me, but heck, I’d really only have a problem with it if they were forced in that situation and uncomfortable with it too.

You’re right though, it’s really tough especially in the in-between parts. There’s no way to not make someone uncomfortable, and it’s a lose-lose situation if they’re forced into their birth-gender bathroom.

gizmo23

What magic law stops opposite sex people from using the opposite bathrooms now?

Google ex-gay and be flooded with the testimonies of even the most die-hard homosexual activists who have overcome same-gender attractions, proving it’s not genetic.

Activists will pretend there are hardly any such testimonies, but anyone can do a search and see otherwise.

Or activists will pretend they’re now bisexual.

The activists seem to hate those who overcome homosexuality. So how does it hurt them that others have turned away from it? Why do they hate them so much?

Is it because if there are any that DO turn away from it it proves it’s not genetic (which is does) and hence they have less of an excuse to remain stuck in it?

Is it because it ruins the talking point that it’s supposedly genetic and hence demands legal enforcement of societal acceptance?

And how does it factor in that it IS genetic fact that a person is a male or female, but if a person instead claims to FEEL like they’re the opposite, then genetic fact is thrown out the window as FEELINGS are the supposed REAL truth? So what if someone doesn’t FEEL like they want those attractions anymore?

So of course when this blatant dishonest hypocrisy is exposed, they’ll try to say “well if he doesn’t want to ACT on being a homosexual that doesn’t mean he’s not one”. But that’s more hypocrisy: Apply that logic to transgenders: So if a transgender doesn’t want to act like a male anymore because he FEELS like he’s a female, does that mean that’s also a lie as well and he’s really still a male only acting like a female? Of course not! Now they’ll instead call you a bigot for even daring suggest he’s still a male.

More like “feelings” trump common sense……. and a struggle against reality.

Guest

Amos, God designed us, He chose to use the female phenotype as the base developmental model with male being a modification of that. He chose to put all the biological information for both sexes in either sex, He chose to have the female->male changes of our neurological systems to happen very late in that development and chose to have the degree of change to be variable by a whole host of factors.

Yes people can be attracted to either sex regardless of their biological sex, by God’s design, just as they can have a feminine identity regardless of the gross genitalia of their body.

What’s lack of common sense is thinking God didn’t know what He was doing.

Amos Moses

“What’s lack of common sense is thinking God didn’t know what He was doing.”

What lacks common sense and a struggle against reality is what you just said about God and His design…… you just make that $#!+ up as you go,,, don’t you.

” He chose to have the female->male changes of our neurological systems to happen very late in that development””Yes people can be attracted to either sex regardless of their biological sex,”

Those were set in stone in the coming together of the X and or Y chromosomes. The rest is just sin…….plain and simple.

Guest

ah so you don’t know anything about the subject.

there ya go.

Amos Moses

You don’t seem to………….

gizmo23

You don’t seem to understand biology or genetics. We all start as females or at least no sex, hormones “activate” the chromosomes that determine sex.

Amos Moses

Even if i accept that as true, all you are telling me is that they are victims…….. and it is still Bovine Scatology…………………..

Amos Moses

The American College of Pediatricians seems to have a FAR different idea than what you describe:

Gender Ideology Harms Children

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

gizmo23

Purely political organization. No science

Amos Moses

Pure DOCTORS who know better than you… unless you want to make the argument that medicine is not SCIENCE……………Just more Bovine Scatology

Emmanuel

Good job NC

BarkingDawg

This is all a bunch of nonsense.

A transgendered woman can use a woman’s toilet now, and who’s going to stop her?

Are they going to institute a “p—- check” at the door?

Balerion

That’ll be their new slogan: “Check your peepee to pee”

gogo0

i’m sure there will be plenty of christians already checking for you

Michael C

Would you support a law that protected gay and transgender citizens from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations if it contained a provision that permitted (but did not require) businesses to restrict access to gender specific facilities on the basis of a person’s legally recognized sex?

This question goes out to those on either side of the argument.

Amos Moses

We need more fire hydrants…….

Amos Moses

We should ask Loretta

youtube. com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA (remove the spaces)

Michael C

I posed a serious question.

I’m actually interested in a solution to this problem and am interested in what type of compromise could be achieved.

Would you find my above proposal acceptable?

Amos Moses

We need more freedom to pee in this country….. i agree………… we should make more fire hydrants so we can all pee at one time, have a group toytee…. and no one need feel endangered because everyone will be seeing everyone else…..problem solved…. that seems to be the goal of this asinine idea about protecting the “feelings” of homosexuals and trannies………. so just let it all hang out while we all hang out and pee……….

Reason2012

Discriminating against everyone else besides transgenders and restricting access to female only or male only restrooms to everyone else in order to “prevent” discrimination is disingenuous

Discriminating against everyone else besides transgenders and restricting access to female only or male only restrooms to everyone else in order to “prevent” discrimination is disingenuous

I fear you didn’t understand my proposal.

“…if it contained a provision that permitted (but did not require) businesses to restrict access to gender specific facilities on the basis of a person’s legally recognized sex?”

This means that businesses would have the ability to limit access to the men’s bathroom for only those who are legally recognized as male and they would have the ability to limit access to the women’s bathroom for only those who are legally recognized as female.

Race is not legally defined or defined by one’s feelings, it’s genetically defined.

Race is not the only characteristic protected by non-discrimination laws. Many of the protected characteristics are not genetic based. Religion, for example.

If you’re interested in responding to my question, I’d be interested in reading your response.

Even if a simple “No” is your answer, I’d still appreciate the fact that you took the time to consider question.

Reason2012

This means that businesses would have the ability to limit access to the men’s bathroom for only those who are legally recognized as male

No, for those who ARE male. Genetics, friend, genetics. Dressing up as a woman doesn’t make you no longer male. Mutilating your genitals doesn’t make you no longer male.

and they would have the ability to limit access to the women’s bathroom for only those who are legally recognized as female.

Just like you want to limit access of women to women’s only bathrooms: 50% of the population.

Race is not the only characteristic protected by non-discrimination laws. Many of the protected characteristics are not genetic based. Religion, for example.

Yes, but this doesn’t change the fact that people are born genetically male or female and cannot deny this just because they want to wear the opposite genders’ clothing or mutilate their genitals.

If you’re interested in responding to my question, I’d be interested in reading your response.

You must not have understand my response if you didn’t think your question wasn’t addressed.
In what way was your question not addressed?

Michael C

Would you support a law that protected gay and trans people from discrimination if bathrooms were off the table?

Reason2012

Homosexuality is not an orientation, any more than being attracted to abusive partners, or being attracted to young people rather than adults – so no law is needed for temporary, abnormal lusts a tiny percent of the population is into at any given time that they continue to overcome as well.

Would you support a law that protects Christians from discrimination for not performing anti-Christian ACTS like promoting a same gender or polygamous wedding?

Michael C

should I take that as a ‘no’?

Jalapeno

Why would people be protected against discrimination laws? They’re expected to do their job. You aren’t going to be protected from having to do the same thing everyone else does.

“There are already anti-discrimination laws in place ”

And many times, it doesn’t apply to sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter if YOU don’t think it’s an orientation, it’s still considered to be one.

You are aware that the protections don’t just apply to gay people, right? Straight people are equally protected.

Reason2012

Can a black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people be forced to bake cakes for ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” celebration? No. That would be a hateful demand.

Can a person into homosexuality who has no problem serving Christians be forced to support the ACT of a “homosexuality is wrong” gathering? No. That would be a hateful demand.

And likewise can a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals be forced to bake cakes for anti-Christian ACTS, like a same-gender wedding? No. That would be a hateful demand.

And homosexuality is no more an orientation than being attracted to young people instead of adults, or being attracted to abusive people – the anti-discrimination laws already protect everyone. That those into homosexuality can sue a baker who had no problem serving them from instead refusing their bigoted anti-Christian act demand shows they have MORE power than they need to sue people for alleged ‘discrimination’. It’s the Christians that need protection from their bigotry for trying to legally force them to support anti-Christian ACTS.

Jalapeno

” No. That would be a hateful demand.”

It’s more like ‘No, discrimination laws don’t apply to political views and events’

“No. That would be a hateful demand.”

Yes, because the only difference is the orientation of the people involved.

” the anti-discrimination laws already protect everyone”

Sure..for race, gender, religion, handicap. Now some people are protected for their sexual orientation. Make up your own definitions of words all you want, ignore the repeated precedence for the concept, it doesn’t really matter. People, in some places, are protected against discrimination based their heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality.

Michael C

Thank you for answering my question. You believe that it should be legal to discriminate against gay and trans citizens in housing, employment, and public accommodations. This bathroom thing isn’t the real issue at all for you.

Would you support a law that protects Christians from discrimination for not performing anti-Christian ACTS like promoting a same gender or polygamous wedding?

No. I would not support exemptions to non-discrimination laws that permit public businesses to refuse service on the basis of their religious beliefs. Churches, religious organizations, and religious corporations get exemptions to non-discrimination laws. I think that’s fair and reasonable.

The reason I do not support this exemption is because if the people who wish to discriminate are exempt from non-discrimination laws, there’s no point in having the law in the first place.

If you were to permit a baker to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple because they disagree with gay marriage, you would also have to permit a baker to refuse to sell a cake to an interfaith or interracial couple because they disagree with interfaith or interracial marriage.

…And where is the line? What if a woman wants to buy a dozen roses for her wife on their anniversary? …or go out to a restaurant to celebrate?

How would you even word such an exemption?

Reason2012

Thank you for answering my question. You believe that it should be legal to discriminate against gay and trans citizens in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

No, I said there are already anti-discrimination laws. You’re being dishonest ignoring what I said and knowingly make the false claim I said it’s ok to discriminate against them.

Firstly, Christians are not “discriminated against” when they are expected to obey the laws that everyone else must follow.

False. We’re not talking about serving those who are currently into homosexuality – we’re talking about them refusing the request from Christians to perform an anti-Christian ACT, let alone then going after them with lawsuits and death threats if they don’t. Christians need protection from this anti-Christian bigotry.

Can a black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people be forced to bake cakes for ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” celebration? No. That would be a hateful demand.

Can a person into homosexuality who has no problem serving Christians be forced to support the ACT of a “homosexuality is wrong” gathering? No. That would be a hateful demand.

And likewise can a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals be forced to bake cakes for anti-Christian ACTS, like a same-gender wedding? No. That would be a hateful demand.

The reason I do not support this exemption is because, if the people who wish to discriminate are exempt from non-discrimination laws, there’s no point in having the law in the first place.

Christians cannot refuse to serve those who are currently into homosexuality (discrimination laws), but they should not be able to be forced to support anti-Christian ACTS (not covered by anti-discrimination law and this is exactly what they need to be protected from).

If you were to permit a baker to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple because they disagree with gay marriage, you would also have to permit a baker to refuse to sell a cake to an interfaith or interracial couple because they disagree with interfaith or interracial marriage.

They already have that right.

…And where is the line? What if a woman wants to buy a dozen roses for her wife on their anniversary? …or go out to a restaurant to celebrate? How would you even word such an exemption?

Simple. Christians cannot be forced to support ACTS (not people: ACTS) that go against their faith.

Michael C

You seem confused about how non-discrimination laws work. I don’t even have the patience to address your entire comment.

No, I said there are already anti-discrimination laws. You’re being dishonest ignoring what I said and knowingly make the false claim I said it’s ok to discriminate against them.

As you said above, you oppose laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. “no law is needed for temporary, abnormal lusts a tiny percent of the population is into at any given time that they continue to overcome as well.”

If non-discrimination laws don’t include sexual orientation and gender identity (which they don’t on the federal level or in the majority of states), that means that it is acceptable to discriminate against a person just because they’re gay or trans in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

If you oppose laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, this means that you think it’s okay to discriminate against gay and trans citizens.

Reason2012

You seem confused about how non-discrimination laws work. I don’t even have the patience to address your entire comment.

If you ignore the points that refute your claims, it’s not a discussion you’re interested in. Disingenuous, Michael.

As you said above, you oppose laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. “no law is needed for temporary, abnormal lusts a tiny percent of the population is into at any given time that they continue to overcome as well.”

Because there are already anti-discrimination laws in place. And this is not a case of being discriminated against because someone’s into homosexuality – it’s a case of them discriminating against everyone else by violating everyone else’s rights to privacy and the right to not be discriminated against to cater to the perversion activists’.

If non-discrimination laws don’t include sexual orientation and gender identity (which they don’t on the federal level or in the majority of states), that means that it is acceptable to discriminate against a person just because they’re gay or trans in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

Except Homosexual desire is no more an orientation than being attracted to young people or being attracted to abusive people and so on – adults continue to overcome all of them.

If you oppose laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, this means that you think it’s okay to discriminate against gay and trans citizens.

Except I’ve said time and again bakers can and should serve those who feel the need to proclaim they’re into homosexuality. It would be discrimination NOT to. But you keep ignoring this point and dishonestly claim I’m for discrimination.

What I’ve always said is that it’s Christians who need protection from the anti-Christians who demand Christians who have no problem serving those into homosexuality instead support anti-Christian ACTS. A huge difference you “don’t have the patience to address” that you’ve been told several times now.

It’s everyone else who needs protection from the anti-normalcy activists who demand everyone else’s privacy be violated to cater to those who need mental help, not enabling, let alone at the expense of everyone else’s rights.

gizmo23

Are you going to have bathroom police check everyone. It can be very easy to fool people in to thinking you are the opposite sex

Oboehner

Would you support putting litter boxes in public places to accommodate Nano the Norwegian and people like her?

Michael C

If you would be willing to take the time to honestly respond to my question, it would be appreciated (regardless of your answer).

Ambulance Chaser

Yeah, seriously. That non-answer was useless and annoying.

Oboehner

Annoying because you refuse to answer? Upsets your little applecart?

Ambulance Chaser

A) That doesn’t make logical sense. Something can’t be “annoying because you refuse to answer.”

B) It’s annoying because, as you are well aware and fully intended, it’s an illogical, nonsensical question designed to childishly harass Michael C and add nothing to the conversation.

Oboehner

A) Attempt to think a little deeper, you call it annoying because you refuse to answer.
B) No more so than the original question, which was a nonsensical question designed to childishly troll a Christian news site.

Oboehner

Whatever sex someone is biologically would determine the accommodations, whatever they “feel” they are is irrelevant as others around don’t “feel” the same.
Now answer my question, we wouldn’t want to make anyone whiney with a non-answer.

Oboehner

So where’s the answer to my question?

Reason2012

It’s telling that God even pointed out that cross dressing is a sin and yet here is the left demanding that the desire to wear women’s clothing is genetic and needs to be legally promoted by our government, while of course then treating others as criminals that dare speak out against such things.

Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Guest

He told the Jews that, irrelevant to those under the New Covenant.

Reason2012

No, crossdressing/ homosexuality is repeated as an abomination in the NT:

Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

Guest

so many misrepresented New Testament passages, not a one that mentions dress, got it.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

So, since God did not specifically mention that u shall not indiscriminately put yr PENIS inside the ANUS or VAGINA of others, that means, to u, every sexual immoral act is allowed by God.?
…….U really know how to twist the Word of God, like the serpent of old.

Guest

No, you really don’t know much about it, do you? Sex for the sake of sex is not a loving act, it makes who ever you are having with an object and not a person. Avoiding sexual degrading of other is part of loving them and loving ourselves. I knew guys in the Army that thought of women as just ‘opportunities for sex’, you can’t love them and do that and you can’t even be loving yourself either.

Ken M

In Matthew, Christ was responding to a question about divorce. Nice try. The other quotes are equally misrepresented.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

According to ACTS.15:28-29, under the New Covenant, Gentile Christians r required by God to keep all the laws of Moses/ /God which r easy n not a burden to them, eg avoid sexual immorality which includes LGBTQism, avoid eating idol-sacrificed foods, blood n strangled animal sacrifice, keep the Ten Commandments(EXO.20:1-17), DEUT.18:9-14, etc. They r exempted by God from keeping burdensome laws like circumcision, kosher foods n other customary/ceremonial laws.
In comparison, under the NC, Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews r required by God to continue to keep all of Moses Law or Jewish laws bc it is not hard n a burden to them.

Guest

Actually, Acts 15:28-29 is a recommendation as the last line indicates. The Old Covenant is a unit as both Jesus, Moses and James told us – either its all in force or none of it is. There is no ‘pick and choosing’. And for those not of Jewish lineage they are not member to the Old Covenant in any fashion – there is no ‘Jew or Gentile’ in the body of Christ.

Romans 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Hebrews 7:18-19The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Reason2012

Please tell me what you think Romans chapter 7 is about and what the entire book of Hebrews is about, and then specifically chapter 7. Your attempt to pretend we can now sin all we want in your attempt to justify homosexual behavior falls woefully short by trying to use those few verses to justify it.

Things that are still sins were repeated in the NT and homosexual behavior was one of them. The ceremonial law was done away with by Christ, not moral behaviors.

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
1 John 2:3-4

Guest

and His commandments are Love God, love and forgive others and yourself. Sin for those under the New Covenant is in not doing these.

.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

MATT.22: (YLT) = 36 `Teacher, which [is] the great command in the Law?’

37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding —

38 this is a first and great command;

39 and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;

40 on these — the two commands — all the law and the prophets do hang.’
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
Jesus Christ did not state that New Covenant Christians only hv to keep the 2 great commandments/laws/Word of God/ /Moses. He only told the Pharisees which were the 2 great commands n that all the other commandments/laws were based on or derived from them. U hv misinterpreted the Word of God/Jesus.
.
.
.
MATT.19: = 16 And lo, one having come near, said to him, `Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have life age-during?’

17 And he said to him, `Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One — God; but if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the
commands.’

Jesus talking to a man under the Old Covenant telling him to obey it. This isn’t new.

That is the common mistake though, people who confuse Jesus addressing those still under the Old Covenant with us under the New. We are to love and forgive, all that a Christian must do flows from this, all sin is in not doing this perfectly, which none of us can, we are carried over the gap by the undeserved gift of Grace.

11 And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.
.
.

REV.22: = 12 And lo, I come quickly, and my reward [is] with me, to render to each as his work shall be;

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega — the Beginning and End — the First and the Last.

14 `Happy are those doing His commands that the authority shall be theirs unto the tree of the life, and by the gates they may enter into the city;

15 and without [are] the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Those who will not inherit the kingdom of God r those who hv unrepentantly broken the laws/commandments of God/ /Moses found in the Old Testament, eg EXO.20, LEV.18:22, etc.

Guest

A bad translation but yes you can’t love God and engage in idolatry, engage prostitutes with men or women, adultery with male or female, steal from others, abuse substances, lead a party lifestyle, break oaths, and many other things. That’s is the whole point – just because the Old Covenant is gone doesn’t mean there is no limit on behavior, there are things you can’t do and and love God, and love others, and love ourselves. The New Covenant is about what we should do, not about what we can’t, but some things are still virtually impossible and keep it at the same time.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

HEB.8: (YLT) = 10 because
this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after
those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws into their mind, and upon
their hearts I will write them, and I will be to them for a God, and
they shall be to Me for a people;
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Jews know most of the laws/commands of God/ /Moses, by rote or memory. So, for Jewish Christians, it was easy for God to write His Law on their hearts = out of their hearts will flow rivers of living water.

Most of the Gentiles do not know much about the laws/commands of God/ /Moses. So, for new Gentile Christians, if they do not go n study deeper into Moses Law, God will not be able to write His Law into their hearts. Writing just the 2 great commands on their hearts is not sufficient for God to make them into complete men of God…

2TIM.3: = 14 And thou — be remaining in the things which thou didst learn and wast entrusted with, having known from whom thou didst learn,

15 and because from a babe the Holy Writings thou hast known, which are able to make thee wise — to salvation, through faith that [is] in Christ
Jesus;

16 every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be fitted — for every good work having been completed.

Guest

Your rationalizations are endless but the simple fact is that if the Old Covenant was still in force every ‘jot and tittle’ of it would be. And you think that because there is only the New Covenant that study of the old is pointless? No, they are the lessons that God wanted us to learn, the foremost being that the old Law was a failure for all do practice it imperfectly.

Timothy is talking to Gentiles who haven’t read the Torah at all, your examples show the shakiness of your position.

Those r Old Testament laws which still apply in many countries, including USA, which has many Gentile Christians.

The New Covenant says that u r saved from hell by faith in Jesus Christ, n not by the works of keeping Moses/ /God’s Law.
……. Nevertheless, if u wanna hv a good n long life on earth, u had better keep fully or partially God’s/ /Moses Law, depending on whether u r Jewish or Gentile Christians, eg u shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, answer against yr neighbor a false testimony, etc.

As for yr salvation, the Word of God Himself, shall bear testimony for or against u when u die n leave this earth, esp against those who hv been unrepentant sinners/evildoers/law-breakers.(cf: LUKE.23:43)

Guest

You realize that all those are incompatible with the New Covenant. right?

And you realize Luke 23:43 is taking about you just as much, right? And as for your usurping God’s right of judgement, may He have mercy upon you.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

R u saying that the New Covenant of God/Jesus does not forbid Christians from committing murder, adultery, stealing, lying against their neighbors n other dastardly evil deeds/sins/law-breaking.?

Ignorant n misguided Christians who foolishly n unrepentantly commit sins/do evil/break the law will definitely be cursed/punished by God or His agents(eg the police/courts), thus running the GRAVE risk of losing their salvation n not finishing the marathon race of faith.

Hence, there hv been many unrepentant Christian pastors n priests who committed adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, CBT, fraud, etc.
……. When they die or leave this earth, will they still be saved from hell in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ.?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

MATT.13: = 18 `Ye, therefore, hear ye the simile of the sower:

19 Every one hearing the word of the reign, and not understanding — the evil one doth come, and doth catch that which hath been sown in his heart; this is that sown by the way.

20 `And that sown on the rocky places, this is he who is hearing the word, and immediately with joy is receiving it, 21 and he hath not root in himself, but is temporary, and persecution or tribulation having happened because of the word, immediately he is
stumbled.

22 `And that sown toward the thorns, this is he who is hearing the word, and the anxiety of this age, and the deceitfulness of the riches, do choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

23 `And that sown on the good ground: this is he who is hearing the word, and is understanding, who indeed doth bear fruit, and doth make, some indeed a hundredfold, and some sixty, and some thirty.’

Guest

How do you ‘murder’ and love at the same time? Do you really need to have a laundry list of ‘don’ts to figure it out? A Christian repents every missed opportunity to love and forgive.

Again, that the Old Covenant is passed is Christianity 101, sure there are some sects that think they still have to keep the Laws of Moses, but if they do then they will be judged harshly for it since part of them was they all had to be kept or it was like none were kept, confirmed by Jesus, Moses and James.

Christ told us his burden was light but some refuse to put down the old yoke regardless, may God have mercy on them.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

So, how come there r unrepentant Christian murderers n even unrepentant Christian pastors who hv committed adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, stealing(= CBT, fraud, cheating, scam, etc) n other sins/evil-deeds/law-breaking, esp those who follow the false “Cheap Grace” n “prosperity Gospel” teachings.
…….Pls don’t give the excuse that sinning/evildoing/law-breaking Christians r not true Christians.
.
The requirement to keep all of Moses/ /God’s Law applied only to the Jews b4 the Cross of Jesus Christ wrt them being justified for salvation(cf: LUKE.16:19-31, 1PET.3:19 & 4:6, MATT.27:53). The rich Jewish man of LUKE.16 was sent to hell bc he had unrepentantly broken the law at DEUT.15:11 which required rich folks to perform charity every Sabbath/7th year = had sinned against the beggar Lazarus.

According to ACTS.15:28, after the Cross, Jews who became Christians were required by God to continue to keep all of Moses Law, while Gentiles who became Christians were only required by God to keep only the easy n non-burdensome parts of Moses Law, eg no need to be circumcised.
…….Of course, the keeping of Moses Law by the Jewish n Gentile Christians whether fully or partially, was thru the power n love of the Holy Spirit, springing from their hearts.
…….In comparison, today’s Jews in Israel n Muslims in Saudi Arabia r compelled by outside forces to keep their Jewish n Sharia laws, eg by religious police/govt.

Yes, He has risen, but there r misguided n ignorant Christians who r still unrepentantly n bloodily piercing Him again with their sins/evil-deeds/law-breaking.(cf: HEB.10:26-31)

Guest

are there? you know their hearts?

the more you talk the more dangerous to yourself and others you sound.

I’m at peace with God, and minister as I was asked. again I warn you with love, turn your back on this path you have set upon, open your heart to the Spirit, love and forgive others and yourself and above all hold mercy foremost in your heart.

It’s best u warn yrself about yr own false teachings about God’s/ /Moses Law being incompatible with the New Covenant… the 2 great commands of Moses law are ….
DEUT.6:5 = 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
LEV.19:18 = 18 You
shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of
your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

It is supposed to be “natural” for Christians who hv been “born-again” of the Spirit, to love to keep all the commandments/laws/Word of God/ /Moses. As per ACTS.15:28-29, this love is different for new Gentile Christian adults bc of their former mostly lawless upbringing from childhood, eg being uncircumcised.
. . . . . . . IOW, for Gentile Christians, gaining eternal life in heaven thru faith in Jesus Christ(JOHN.3:16) is much more important than gaining a good n long life on earth thru the works of keeping Moses Law(DEUT.28).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
MATT.7: (YLT) = 15 `But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep’s clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves.

16 From their fruits ye shall know them; do [men] gather from thorns grapes? or from thistles figs?

17 so every good tree doth yield good fruits, but the bad tree doth yield evil fruits.
18 A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits.

19 Every tree not yielding good fruit is cut down and is cast to fire:
20 therefore from their fruits ye shall know them.

21 `Not every one who is saying to me Lord, lord, shall come into the reign of the heavens; but he who is doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, have we not in thy name
prophesied? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many mighty things?

23 and then I will acknowledge to them, that — I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness.
.
.
.
REV.22: = 12 And lo, I come quickly, and my reward [is] with me, to render to each as his work shall be;

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega — the Beginning and End — the First and the Last.

14 `Happy are those doing His commands that the authority shall be theirs unto the tree of the life, and by the gates they may enter into the city;

15 and without [are] the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.

Guest

You are confused, the Old Covenant is gone but that doesn’t mean that many of the things it addressed aren’t also things those under the new Covenant wouldn’t do. 1 Timothy demonstrates this with hits trying to recreate the spirit of the ’10 Commandments’ in the same order. Yes it does say that mother and father murder instead of honoring them, but the gist is there including both kinds of adultery and the rest.

Again, the scriptures I quoted are clear and there are many more – the old Law is gone in its entirety.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

ROM.6: (YLT) = 1 What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound?

2 let it not be! we who died to the sin — how shall we still live in it?
.
.
.
ROM.7: = 7 What, then, shall we say? the law [is] sin? let it not be! but the sin I did not know except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the law had not said:

8 `Thou shalt not covet;’ and the sin having received an opportunity, through the command, did work in me all covetousness — for apart from law sin is dead.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

GAL.2:16 says that Christians r justified for salvation solely thru their faith in Jesus Christ, n not thru their works of keeping the Law.
…….Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, stated this bc there was a group of Jewish Christians called the Judaizers, led by James the Just – the bishop of Jerusalem, who had campaigned for the new Gentile Christians to be required to also keep all of Moses Law, eg circumcision.
…….Hence, we hv the dispensation of God for Gentile Christians at ACTS.15:28-29, which had still required the Gentile Christians to keep all the easy n non-burdensome laws/commandments of God/ /Moses. Which one.? They will hv to go n study the Old Testament, in order to know which one.

In comparison, till today, the Jews falsely think that they hv been saved from hell by just believing in God n keeping all His Law or Moses Law or Jewish laws.

Self-righteous Gentile Christians who foolishly ignore all of Moses Law except the 2 great commands/laws will likely end up breaking some not-so-great commands/laws of God/ /Moses(eg LEV.10:9, DEUT.18:9-14, etc), resulting in them being cursed by God with calamities on earth, eg cancer, hospitalization, accidents, etc(DEUT.28:15). They may finish up like the wife of Job who while suffering, cursed God n died = losing her salvation.(cf: the incest-sinner of 1COR.5:1-5)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

HEB.10: = 26 For we — willfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth — no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice,

27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery zeal, about to devour the opposers;

28 any one who did set at nought a law of Moses, apart from mercies, by two or three witnesses, doth die,

29 of how much sorer punishment shall he be counted worthy who the Son of God did trample on, and the blood of the covenant did count a common thing,
in which he was sanctified, and to the Spirit of the grace did despite?

30 for we have known Him who is saying, `Vengeance [is] Mine, I will
recompense, saith the Lord;’ and again, `The Lord shall judge His
people;’ —

31 fearful [is] the falling into the hands of a living God.

Guest

Exactly, sin is violating the New Covenant, not loving, not forgiving.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

What is the meaning of not honoring yr father n yr mother = breaking the law/command of God/ /Moses at EXO.20:12.? Do u know.?

Guest

You don’t know? Fortunately we have the meaning of the commandments in different words in Deuteronomy 21:18
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him…

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

DEUT.21:18 has little to do with honoring yr parents, but with the son committing sins/evil-deeds/law-breaking n refusing to be chastised by the parents. …….

(YLT) 18 `When a man hath a son apostatizing and rebellious — he is not hearkening to the voice of his father, and to the voice of his mother, and they have chastised him, and he doth not hearken unto them —

19 then laid hold on him have his father and his mother, and they have brought him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place,

20 and have said unto the elders of his city, Our son — this one — is
apostatizing and rebellious; he is not hearkening to our voice — a
glutton and drunkard;

21 and all the men of his city have stoned him with stones, and he hath died,
and thou hast put away the evil out of thy midst, and all Israel do hear
and fear.

Guest

Thank God we aren’t under the Old Covenant anymore! And shows why 1 Timothy had to use the child killing the parent in their attempt to show the 10 commandments in some form were still relevant under the New.

But you are proving my point now.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

2 Timothy 3Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

3 And this know thou, that in the last days there shall come perilous times,

2 for men shall be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, evil-speakers, to parents disobedient, unthankful, unkind,

3 without natural affection, implacable, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, not lovers of those who are good,

4 traitors, heady, lofty, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God,

5 having a form of piety, and its power having denied; and from these be turning away,

6 for of these there are those coming into the houses and leading captive the silly women, laden with sins, led away with desires manifold,

7 always learning, and never to a knowledge of truth able to come,

8 and, even as Jannes and Jambres stood against Moses, so also these do stand against the truth, men corrupted in mind, disapproved concerning the faith;

9 but they shall not advance any further, for their folly shall be manifest to all, as theirs also did become.

Guest

I don’t think you are that far gone, there are many Christians that live as if the Old Covenant affected them, Since it has passed the harm is only in their condemning others for things that are not sin – they will all be judged for this, may God have mercy.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Do u think u n other misguided Christians can forever escape the judgment of God for yr sins/evil-deeds/law-breaking if u r unrepentant.?

Fyi, the Lord Jesus Christ will soon be coming back to earth to exact His vengeance upon ALL the unrepentant sinners/evildoers/law-breakers n unbelievers who will still be living on earth.(1THESS.4:16, REV.6 & 7)
…….Those who r already dead/asleep during His 2nd Advent to earth will be judged by Him n then sent to hell during the 2nd resurrection n the opening of the Book of Life.(REV.20:12)

Guest

Well then there’s no point in having the discussion at all – unless of course you are the one sinning, doing evil and breaking laws that is.

I’m not worried and I shall worry about you for you.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Since u live “lazily” according to the 2 great commands only, u r bound to be sinning, doing evil n breaking laws ignorantly, foolishly n unrepentantly, eg u do not know the true meaning of “honoring yr father n yr mother” at EXO.20:12.
.
MATT.5: (YLT) = 17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;

18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.

19 `Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands — the least — and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but
whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the
reign of the heavens.

20 `For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens.

Guest

sorry you only shown you don’t know the true meaning of anything.

The fruits of the Spirit identify Christians, and against them there is no law, and as James said “for judgment [will be] without mercy to him that has shewn no mercy. Mercy glories over judgment.”

people claiming to be Christian who are more concerned with sinning than loving and forgiving are an oxymoron for the less they love and forgive the more they sin. and the more they judge the more they put their soul at risk.

No one before the throne will be told they loved too much, were too forgiving, too compassionate. But they will be told they were too judgemental, too merciless.

The way you advocate is dangerous, the Spirit and the Word is against it and I rebuke it. Worry less about the possible sins of others and focus more on on the very real ones that are your own.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Actually, both judgment/discernment n love r needed. …….
.
.
.
1JOHN.3: (NKJV) = Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God![a] Therefore the world does not know us,[b] because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved,
now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we
shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him,
for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Sin and the Child of God

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning.
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy
the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The Imperative of Love

10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest:
Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who
was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder
him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

13 Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother[c] abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Guest

and all sin is from lack of loving and forgiving.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Is that how the Word/Bible define sin/evil-deed.?
.
Or r u making up new Scripture, like Jesus Christ n His apostles/disciples.?

Guest

no need to make up new ones, you don’t pay attention to the ones already written.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

1JOHN.5: =

16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.

17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

Knowing the True—Rejecting the False

18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself,[e] and the wicked one does not touch him.

19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Do u know who Jesus Christ really is.? (cf: MATT.16:13-16, 1TIM.3:16)

Guest

Better than you it seems.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Only u n those who like to commit sins/evil-deeds or lawlessness, r revolted by God’s/ /Moses Law.

Guest

And since you don’t understand Christianity and have condemned yourself with your own words I guess we’re done.

http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

The transgender rights movement can be attributed to the rights culture created by constitutional framers when they replaced Biblical responsibilities with Enlightenment rights.

See blog article “America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights.” Click on my picture, then our website. Go to our Blog and scroll down to title.

George Jenkins

“I can’t use the men’s room. I won’t go back to the men’s room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there,” Of course, he might die in the ladies washroom too. If someone’s husband found him in there with his wife.

Anne Green

He should just continue using the ladies’ room and no one will be the wiser. There are no statistics on trans people committing assault or molestation because there aren’t any reported cases. They just want to pee. Let them do so in peace.

George Jenkins

No one is even stopping them doing it in peace. But a nice try at deflecting the argument, eh? They should just do pee in peace where their body structure says they should. They may be uncomfortable, but their arrogance should not let them make a room full of normal people uncomfortable

Anne Green

Do you know what’s uncomfortable? Getting assaulted, which is much more likely to happen TO a trans person, not BY a trans person. Your arrogance and hatred doesn’t sway me or intimidate me in the slightest to stand up for these folks – and I consider myself quite normal. Thank goodness civil rights aren’t determined by a majority.

George Jenkins

Who is getting assaulted? How many imaginary scenarios can you dream up.You could not make any logical points so you tried deflection. That did not work, so now you try attacking me. The next to final position of one who cannot logically back up an argument. No one is getting assaulted, but if they were it would be the exception, right? I have no doubt you consider yourself normal. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong.

Get Breaking Christian News in Your Inbox!

Sign Me Up! Top Daily Top Weekly

Christian News Headlines

Keep your site fresh and your visitors coming back by featuring Christian News Network's top news stories on your site. Learn more →

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →